Should you need a license to own an unaltered dog?

[maggiesmommy]

I think everyone here supports responsible breeding but opposes backyard breeding, puppy mills, and negligent/unintentional breeding.

 

To cut back on the rate of unwanted pups and irresponsible breeders, I personally think that we should enact legislation that would require anyone with an unspayed/unneutered dog to get a license, which would only be available to responsible breeders whose homes and facilities have been inspected.

I'm sure that sounds a little too nanny-state to some people, though. What do you think?

[Liz P]

Absolutely not. I don't want anyone inspecting my home.

[Gideon's girl]

Who would enforce it? Veterinarians? And what happens when people don't obey it? Dogs euthanized? We do need laws that say the breeder is responsible for every puppy they produce, for the life of the dog. If a buyer could bring a dog back at any time, I'm sure people would breed less. My state requires lisencing of every dog and the fees are more for an unneutered dog. The intended consequence is that almost everyone who is going to neuter their dog at all neuters early, long before the dog is done growing. But those who don't intend on neutering may just decide not to lisence at all. Obviously that doesn't fix the problem, it just created a new one.

 

BTW, who would get to decide what made a responsible breeder? Because I know for a fact that that alone is a huge controversy.

[Oko]

I think there'd be too many factors for that to work. Plus what about people who have intact dogs but do not want to breed them? Wasn't something like this proposed, needing a kennel license if you have 4 breeding age bitches or something along those lines? IIRC, the guidelines made it so you would have had to raise puppies in a kennel rather than a home, and could actually favor the irresponsible.

[maggiesmommy]

Those concerns all make perfect sense. I can see how legislation like that could end up being very counterproductive. Oko, I personally don't think people should own unaltered animals unless they intend to breed them, because most unaltered animals will at some point produce pups, whether you plan on breeding them or not. But I can see how this could end up just being a huge mess and favoring mills over responsible breeders, and leading to massive euthanasia, if it really went through.

The problem is that I don't know of any other alternatives. As a shelter volunteer who has seen way, way too many animals killed because of irresponsible breeding, I know that our current laws aren't working. I just don't know what the alternative is, and this was the only option I could think of. Does anyone else have ideas about how to minimize/eliminate irresponsible breeders?

[bcnewe2]

Absolutely NOT.

We can't enforce what we have. How bout more public education? And really....to be responsible for every puppy that gets sold? You'd be punishing people that don't deserve it and the ones that did would just be more crafty. No way....we would never find a good dog again. Or how does that gun saying go....

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will own guns. Same with dogs.

We can't punish people into responsibility. Education and public awareness.

PLEASE....

 

Maggie's mommy I've owned unaltered dogs for 15 years. I have produced exactly 0 puppies, I am not unusual. You or anyone have no right telling me how to keep my dogs unless I'm abusing them...just ridiculous if you ask me....sorry, a personal pet peeve of mine.

[Gideon's girl]

You definitely know the shelter workers lines well, but it is simply not true that most unaltered animals will at some time produce pups. There are whole countries out there in this world where altering is not done. They have a culture of responsible dog ownership so it is not necessary. There are perfectly good and legitimate reasons for not altering a dog besides breeding.

[Oko]

I think it would be unfair to insist people have a surgery performed on their animal for no reason other than they weren't going to breed it. There are plenty of health reasons to keep animals intact. I know many people with intact dogs, who have not had an accident, and have no intentions of breeding. At what age would they have to decide animals be spayed or neutered? I just find it too restrictive.

[Crawford Dogs]

Absolutely not. It is no one's business but mine. Many people, myself included, prefer to leave their dogs intact so that they have proper bone development, etc. There are many more issues than preventing puppy mills at hand. My dog's health is my foremost concern and I would honestly move out of any area that felt they needed to regulate my dog's reproductive abilities (or anything else for that matter). Also puppy mills get around many laws. The laws tend to damage reputable, small time breeders more often than the puppy mills.

[Liz P]

We do need laws that say the breeder is responsible for every puppy they produce, for the life of the dog. If a buyer could bring a dog back at any time, I'm sure people would breed less.

 

Um, no. What happened to the responsibility of the people who bought the dog? Why do they get to dump an animal back on the breeder? Sorry, but if you own the dog, whether you bred it or bought it, it's YOUR responsibility. If you choose to sell or place that dog, it's not on your shoulders to do so with the best interest of the dog at heart.

[Gideon's girl]

I personally think part of being a responsible breeder is being willing to take back any dog you bred. Then it would be up to the breeder to evaluate that dog and decide whether to rehome it, keep it, or put it down. Then I think a lot of these so called breeders would think a little more before letting a puppy go to any home that has the cash. I don't mind a bit if you don't agree, but that is my view of what taking true responsibility looks like. And I'm sure it is colored by the fact that I live in redneck central where everybody and his brother breeds enough pitbulls to repopulate several large states, with no care to where they are going or what care they will receive. If everybody bred as infrequently as real BC breeders do, then the possibility of getting back a couple of puppies shouldn't be overwhelming. But for the people that breed multiple dogs, twice a year, year after year, I think that might cool their jets a bit. And no, I don't really want anything like that legislated. I want people to act responsibly because it is the right thing to do, not because big brother is watching.

[maggiesmommy]

I'm very sorry to anyone who took offense; this was intended to be a friendly discussion, not an attack on anyone's choices. I wasn't aware that there were health reasons for not spaying and neutering. You're right that I don't have exact statistics on how many unaltered animals end up producing pups.

I had heard from several sources (shelter staff, vets, ASPCA, etc.) that spayed and neutered animals are healthier and have longer lives, so I honestly didn't know that there was any reason not to alter unless you plan on breeding. Could someone give me more information about this?

[Liz P]

I do have a policy to take back anything I breed. Doesn't mean I think the buyer should be any less responsible. Besides, do you really want those irresponsible people taking dogs back? What will they do with them? Breed them? Stick them in a pen to languish? I am not saying the breeder has no responsibility, but that they shouldn't be expected to shoulder all the burden. It's a two way street. The breeder has to think through their decision to produce pup and the buyer needs to think through their decision to buy one.

[maggiesmommy]

I personally think part of being a responsible breeder is being willing to take back any dog you bred. Then it would be up to the breeder to evaluate that dog and decide whether to rehome it, keep it, or put it down. Then I think a lot of these so called breeders would think a little more before letting a puppy go to any home that has the cash. I don't mind a bit if you don't agree, but that is my view of what taking true responsibility looks like. And I'm sure it is colored by the fact that I live in redneck central where everybody and his brother breeds enough pitbulls to repopulate several large states, with no care to where they are going or what care they will receive. If everybody bred as infrequently as real BC breeders do, then the possibility of getting back a couple of puppies shouldn't be overwhelming. But for the people that breed multiple dogs, twice a year, year after year, I think that might cool their jets a bit. And no, I don't really want anything like that legislated. I want people to act responsibly because it is the right thing to do, not because big brother is watching.

 

I totally get that... And yeah, redneck central here, too... About 90% of the dogs we get are pits and pit mixes from back yard breeders... Most end up being euthanized.

[Gideon's girl]

I do have a policy to take back anything I breed. Doesn't mean I think the buyer should be any less responsible. Besides, do you really want those irresponsible people taking dogs back? What will they do with them? Breed them? Stick them in a pen to languish? I am not saying the breeder has no responsibility, but that they shouldn't be expected to shoulder all the burden. It's a two way street. The breeder has to think through their decision to produce pup and the buyer needs to think through their decision to buy one.

I too don't think the buyer should be any less responsible, but I come from an area where 90% of the breeders don't care who they sell to. If their responsibility extended to making the right choices about homes for their pups, then they wouldn't have any more worry than you do about needing to take back a pup. I'm not talking about letting anybody off the hook for their responsibilities, just the opposite. We seem to be in a culture of everyone ditching their responsibilities, but I think as a culture we need to reverse that, for the sake of our children at least. We need to be willing to go beyond just the bare minimum to get by.

 

BTW, our local shelter has room for 60 dogs if they go 3 to a run. There are usually 58 or 59 pits and 1 or 2 others. They put down about 20 dogs a day five days a week, and sometimes they have to euthanize on weekends too. They probably don't adopt out even two dogs a day.

[GentleLake]

I'm not sure I understand the original question . . .

 

Maybe it's different in some places, but most I know of require licenses for all dogs, whether intact or neutered. Most also discount the licenses for neutered dogs, I assume in an effort to encourage neutering to reduce unplanned litters, but the difference usually ins't enough to be much of an incentive.

[GentleLake]

I wasn't aware that there were health reasons for not spaying and neutering.

 

I had heard from several sources (shelter staff, vets, ASPCA, etc.) that spayed and neutered animals are healthier and have longer lives, so I honestly didn't know that there was any reason not to alter unless you plan on breeding. Could someone give me more information about this?

 

There's mounting evidence that neutering dogs, especially males, significantly increases the risk of several health problems. I was just reading about it again in the past day or 2. If I ever have the opportunity to make a decision about

altering a dog, I won't do it.

 

And as long as guardians are diligent about prevented unintended matings, I won't hold it against them if they leave their dogs intact.

 

Here are just a couple links:

 

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/your-dog-needs-to-be-spayed-or-neutered-right/

 

Very brief,but alludes to the issue:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Love-Family/Galleries/What-If-You-Could-Lengthen-Your-Dogs-Life.aspx?nlsource=13&p=5&source=NEWSLETTER&utm_campaign=Buddhist&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=NL&utm_term=gentlelake.com&b=1 (#5 if it doesn't go directly to it).

[Gideon's girl]

Where I live, it is a $50 difference every year. The people with neutered dogs pay $10 every year and the people with unneutered animals don't pay $60 every year. And if you were like me and law abiding, then you only have until your dog is 4 months of age to get them neutered or pay the increased fine.

[gcv-border]

I just read an argument for doing away with dog licenses:

There is a correlation between conscientious pet owners who pay for licenses and negligent 'owners' who do not license their dogs. The responsible owners, who obey the law and buy licenses, are generally not adding to the pet population. The owners who are not licensing their pets and allowing them to run free and breed, are adding puppies to the shelter population and increasing costs for taxpayers,

 

Licensing usually does not generate revenue. The $5 or $10 license fee doesn't cover tag, administrative costs, data entry, paperwork costs, etc.

 

I don't have an answer about licensing or not, but the above argument made me think that the licensing structure, as it currently exists, doesn't make sense.

 

Jovi

[maggiesmommy]

I live in Tennessee and there are no licenses here for any dogs... Is that something that Northern states do? We have mandatory annual rabies vaccines but I don't think most people even get those even though rabies shots are deeply discounted (only about $5-10 each in my city)... Which does go to show that if there was a license system in place, it would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Thanks for the info on the health risks of neutering, btw, and for the thoughtful discussion. Again, I never meant this as a personal attack on anyone's choices, just as a point of conversation because I know we'd all like to see a solution to overpopulation.

[mum24dog]

Absolutely NOT.

We can't enforce what we have.

 

This.

 

I would like to see the majority of non breeding dogs neutered but believe strongly in personal freedom as long as no one else is harmed. (Having 6 dogs shouldn't be legislated against, having 6 dogs that run riot and bark constantly day and night should.)

 

Laws that are not enforced bring the whole legal system into disrepute.

 

Fewer laws but better laws that most people would respect should be the aim.

[alligande]

Another no... I also have an unaltered male who will never be bred. He was not fixed originally for health reasons to allow him to grow, he matured into a great dog and I see no reason to neuter my male dog.

 

Maggiesmommy, I did a lot of research before making my decision, I am a geek and have often been accused of over reading and over thinking so after wading through lots of people's opinions I really came to the conclusion it's cultural. The US and the UK have both used spay/neuter to control animal populations other European countries even ban it except for medical reasons.

 

Personally I think it really is more about attitude and regional culture. I live in Rhode Island and today most of the dogs adopted by local animal shelter are imported from the south. There are plenty of pit bulk types, but not much else available locally. When I first moved here in 1995 our local shelter had a big variety of dogs, but they have been very active in out reach programs and the supply of puppies and cute dogs dried up... Which is a good thing, but the board felt it had a dilemma people wanted to adopt a dog, but if they did not have any cute dogs or puppies people would go elsewhere and that more than likely would be a pet store or backyard breeder so they made the decision to work with one southern shelter and to see if they could make a difference.

It does seem from my southern New England view point, that there has been a huge improvement in this region regarding unwanted dogs, but there have been no changes in the south. I have no statistics just antidotal evidence from chatting to my fellow local dog owners, when I got my first dog in 95 most came from the local shelter, and were local owner surrenders and strays, now most of them have come from the south via petfinder

 

Regarding licensing my town has a slightly blizare policy, renewals are due in April, $10 for spayed/neutered $15 unaltered over the age of 6 months, here is the but... They keep no computer records just a paper slip, and have no idea if you have registered from one year to the next, and if you are late and go to register your dog in May they tack on $40, so most people just skip a year, everyone at the city clerks office agrees it ridiculous but the council passed it a few years ago and unlike the highly unpopular photo Ids for dogs which was resinded after one of the biggest protests ever in the town.... But that is a whole other story.

[juliepoudrier]

MaggiesMommy, I have lived in both VA (most of my life) and NC (southern states, BTW) and most municipalities/more populated areas require licenses. In both states, there are now laws (at least in some areas; I don't know if it's statewide) that require your vet to report your pet's rabies vaccine to the local government. The government then uses that information to send you a bill for a dog license. It's one way to widen the net on getting dogs licencsed, but I think it's extremely counterproductive, because people who don't want the government telling them to pay for a license will simply not bother with a rabies vaccine, which is very risky in these rabies-endemic areas.

 

You can also put me down as a "no." I wish breeders were more responsible, but I don't think requiring a license is going to increase anyone's responsibility or somehow turn bad breeders into good ones.

 

Gideon's Girl,

Like Liz I personally would take a pup I bred back should such a thing be necessary, but just as with licensing, requiring a breeder to take dogs back is often not in the best interests of the dogs. The Sw****rds of the world would simply use such dogs in their breeding operations or place them into a so-called rescue (thinly disguised way to pass on unwanted dogs bred by said breeder), or worse.

 

As I've said before, despite what legislators seem to refuse to learn, you can't legislate morals or ethics. People will either do the right thing or they won't, and no amount of laws is going to change that, especially in a world where there aren't the funds to enforce the existing laws, let alone any new ones.

 

MaggiesMommy,

Lots of working dog folks keep their dogs intact. Yes, there are occasional accidental breedings, but given the ratio of intact dogs to accidental breedings, I'd say that most people are perfectly capable of keeping intact dogs without producing puppies. I have a mix of intact and neutered. In the past 13 years I have deliberately bred two litters and have had exactly zero accidental litters. It's not rocket science to keep intact dogs from breeding, but you do have to be observant (know your bitch is in heat) and diligent about keeping intact dogs away from her during that time. It's really not so hard.

 

Do I think all dogs should remain intact, as is more the norm in some European countries? No. But I don't think neutering needs to be legislated either, for the same reasons others have stated: those who are law abiding will neuter, but they aren't the ones causing the breeding problem in the first place....

 

J.

[Sue R]

No. I don't think it's enforceable. I don't think it would solve any of the problems whatsoever. I think it would hurt responsible breeders of working dogs. I think it's too simplistic an answer to a bigger problem.

[mum24dog]

The US and the UK have both used spay/neuter to control animal populations other European countries even ban it except for medical reasons.

 

The anti neutering countries tend to be those where the population is used to the state controlling all sorts of aspects of their behaviour which in other countries would be considered an infringement of liberty. Some countries accept regimentation easier than others. It wouldn't suit me but I've been brought up in a more libertarian society.

 

if it is considered a social crime to own multiple dogs and to allow them to breed irresponsibly or behave in a way that causes a nuisance the general public will police itself.